Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I was astounded by Kim Crockett's opinion piece in Saturday's Star Tribune ("I'll end division, restore confidence in elections"). It begins: "Americans are fighting about elections." Um, sadly, no, the only ones fighting the elections are Republicans who would like to restructure the process so they win. Election results were fine until 2020 when Donald Trump didn't like the outcome. The only ones still fighting election results are the deniers. Crockett is a denier and has stated she may or may not accept the election results. How is that building trust and confidence in the process? You will only believe the results if you win? That makes absolutely no sense. That's why it's called an election. You win some and you lose some.

I have confidence in how Minnesota conducts its elections. Having been an election judge for several years, I know firsthand how professional and responsible the election workers are. Every worker I have ever met, both Republican and Democrat, has tremendous amounts of integrity and a deep respect for the process. A person does not get to walk in, grab a ballot and vote. It really does not work that way, ever. It is not Ole and Lena, it is process and there are stringent rules for same-day registration. Just "vouching" for someone does not automatically ensure that person votes — there is really more to it. And when Crockett states that she has received "copies of registration cards for deceased relatives," I wonder just how many? Six, 20, 500? I find it ironic that she states that in 2016 there were 335,000 registered on Election Day and 26,000 were challenged, but by whom? And look who won the election.

The last two years have been exhausting. If after the Jan. 6 insurrection Republicans still support the election deniers' claim that it was "stolen," I cannot in good faith vote for a Republican candidate. If Crockett truly wants what is best for Minnesota, she should know personally how elections work and trust the people and the process. And if you lose, take it with a smile and move on.

Linda Carvel, Plymouth

•••

I am not so naive as to believe that there was no fraud in the 2020 election. The same is probably true of every election of national consequence in our recent history. Examples are many. In the 1960 election there is some evidence that Democratic machine politics cost Richard Nixon an electoral win over John Kennedy. More recently, in what was arguably the closest election in recent history, the conservative 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount prematurely and gave the election to George W. Bush over Al Gore. Perhaps the true margin in that election was a single vote. Both Bush and Gore saw that the national interest would not be served by casting doubt on the election process. They saw their personal interest as subservient to the national interest. There were protests in each case and there was broadly based dissatisfaction with the outcome, but people accepted the new president as legitimate, and the republic still stood. There was a broad acceptance that both parties were patriots before partisans. No one stormed the Capitol.

It seems that this is no longer the case. By historical standards the 2020 election was not close. Through 60-odd court cases and endless recounts, the integrity of the process was upheld. This despite the best efforts of groups like Arizona's Cyber Ninjas. The division and rancor that followed that election were and are caused by people like Crockett. In her piece, she offers a stunning array of potential sources of fraud but offers no hard numbers as to the actual proven cases of fraud. She concludes that because large numbers of cases were not discovered, that doesn't mean they don't exist. This is true. It is impossible to prove a negative. That same logic can be applied to the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot.

Minnesota's elections are not without issues. But partisan hacks who specialize in divisive rhetoric will never "end division and restore confidence." They will do nothing more than throw gas on an already incendiary situation.

Timothy McLean, Blaine

In a recent article the Star Tribune noted that control of the Legislature will be determined in suburban elections ("Path to power goes through suburbs," Oct. 23).

In Senate District 45, there are two candidates of superior quality who would make huge contributions for Minnesota in the next Legislature.

One of them, Kelly Morrison, is running for the Senate and has already proven during her two terms in the Minnesota House to be not only a quality representative but a remarkably effective one. She wrote more than 25 bills that were passed into law during a time of split government. Morrison, an OB-GYN doctor, made Minnesota better by working across the aisle and using science and data to form effective legislation. She has proved to be a true shining star. Her regular community meetings have been many and well attended.

Lauren Bresnahan is running for the House seat in 45A. In addition to growing up in Waconia and being a mom, she is a Ph.D. economist who has worked in the Congressional Budget Office and for KPMG — bringing to bear remarkable economic knowledge and experience that is desperately needed in St. Paul.

With both of these women, their quality and experience is only exceeded by their empathy and integrity. Having been involved in local politics for decades, I can truly say that when I think of what Morrison and Bresnahan could do for Minnesota, it takes my breath away. Brilliant and compassionate, they have my vote, and I encourage my west metro neighbors to do the same. They are rare talents, and this is an important election.

Rob Johnstone, Mound

I'm writing to clear up some falsehoods stated and key facts missing in Oct. 24 letter written by Osseo school board member and DFL Senate Caucus district coordinator Tamara Grady, the latter a fact she failed to disclose ("To support schools, re-elect Blaha," Readers Write).

Grady writes in the letter that current State Auditor Julie Blaha secured bipartisan funding and legislation to provide annual financial auditing for school districts across Minnesota. Grady wrote that "due to additional oversight needs across the state due to an influx of federal COVID-19 relief money, and the extra pressures on school districts to adapt to the pandemic, Blaha put the plan on hold until next year."

This is a misstatement by Grady. How do I know? Because I am a state senator, and I'm the chair of the Senate State Finance Committee.

In January 2022, Blaha contacted my office and told me and my staff that she would no longer be needing these funds as she was unable to hire staff and that it was no longer a priority for her office.

I declined to support removal of funding for auditing schools.

In June 2021, the Legislature passed and the governor signed a bill providing additional funds specifically dedicated to support auditing of schools. In passing this bill into law, both Democrats and Republicans agreed that the Office of the State Auditor auditing our schools for the first time in 20 years could be a part of the solution to help with pandemic-related learning loss as well as close the achievement gap and address other issues in our public schools. Thus, in January of this year, I was surprised by, and thus did not support, Blaha's request to abandon this important goal. Thus, to date these funds remain available to her, remain unused, and our schools remain unaudited by the Office of the State Auditor.

These facts matter when people are considering who they should vote for in the state auditor race.

Mary Kiffmeyer, Big Lake, Minn.

The writer is a state senator.